Nigel Farage sets the record straight. As usual, we are being fed a steady diet of lies about this 21st century invasion of Europe, and there are only a few courageous voices willing to speak the truth. Congratulations to Mr. Farage for standing up to the calculated deception and emotional manipulation of the Beeb, one of the most powerful institutions encouraging the destruction of the continent under the auspices of humanitarianism.

You’ll have trouble finding an accurate description of the motivation behind the terrorist attacks which took place in Copenhagen a little over a week ago, at least so far as the major media outlets are concerned. Even as European Jewry is being figuratively herded back into the ghetto, the newspapers and networks ostensibly responsible for reporting the news conceal it behind a veil of ideologically-inspired deception. The facts behind this outrage couldn’t be more readily available, yet the logical conclusions to be drawn are anathema to bien pensant opinion espoused by outlets such as the New York Times.

The deceased jihadist was not the first person to target the Great Synagogue of Copenhagen, as Daniel Greenfield points out. Unfortunately, I doubt that he will be the last, as the nation of Denmark-like most of Western Europe-has, over the past half century or so, been flooded with migrants whose progeny the Times will no doubt declare native sons if and when they decide to go postal on the indigenous population. In order to see what a failure the multiculturalist experiment in Europe, particularly Denmark, has been, I would recommend reading a piece by Michael Moynihan published two years ago in The Tablet.

Although encumbered by the open-borders dogma that plagues so many libertarians-and thus, unable to delineate the direct connection between mass immigration from the Islamic world and contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe-it is worth reading. Primarily because it makes explicit the ineluctable link between the tenets of Islam and the actions of immigrant youth which plague the headlines of European newspapers. We can’t begin to address this problem until we acknowledge what the problem is as a society. Alas, that’s something that the leaders of Europe-as well as the United States-are unwilling to do, regardless of the amount of innocent blood sacrificed to their ignoble ideal.

As Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies points out, there were many reasons why Thomas Eric Duncan should never have been allowed to enter the United States. It turns out that the simple, prophylactic measures which ensure the fiscal and cultural vibrancy of this country-or which used to do so, at any rate-also have immense public health benefits, e.g. preventing the diffusion of an incredibly fatal pandemic. The fact that lax customs and border procedures have endangered American citizens should come as no surprise to those of us who have been following the epidemiological nightmare which has emerged from this administration’s embrace of the thousands of unaccompanied minors streaming into our country from Central America, via Mexico. 

However, I’d like to briefly explore the way in which this case illustrates the fundamental divide that lies at the heart of immigration to the West from the third world. Namely, the desires of those who are mired in poverty-and in this case, who are forced to rely upon parlous healthcare distribution networks-versus the needs of those who are living in developed nations such as the United States and United Kingdom. Leaving aside the dubious ethicality of  traveling abroad with the knowledge that you’ve contracted the ebola virus, seeking treatment at first-class medical facilities in the United States made perfect sense to Mr. Duncan as a matter of self-interest and survival, especially when he contemplated the alternative.

This is why the  refrain by open borders fetishists that those of us who want reasonable immigration policies are “anti-immigrant” and “xenophobic” misses the point altogether, which I’m sure is intentional on their part. No one is blaming immigrants for wanting to escape the disastrous conditions in which they find themselves-and which many of us would attempt to flee if found in similar circumstances. The blame does not accrue to them, but to the political, corporate, and journalistic class which has enabled scores of such individuals to find safe haven in the west at our expense.

It’s not immigrants who are at fault for the problems you’ve seen catalogued in these pages for the past four years, but the architects of public policies which have allowed these problems to manifest in the United States. The ultimate outcome of Mr. Duncan’s trip to the United States has yet to be determined, but I think we can safely assume that the shortsighted and politically opportunistic policies which allowed him to travel freely around this country will not revisited any time soon, despite their potentially catastrophic consequences for the rest of us.

This past week saw the first American victim of the best and brightest Barack Obama has welcomed into the warm embrace of the United States. We now have confirmed reports that a Border Patrol officer has contracted scabies from the unaccompanied minors he was tending to, rather than performing his job, i.e. protecting the American public. If a contagious skin disease isn’t enough to sour you on the stream of Central Americans being distributed throughout the United States, how do you feel about a potential tuberculosis outbreak? Not deterred by the wasting disease? How about a nice influenza epidemic?

Yes, that’s right. There are now recorded cases of the H1N1 virus among our newest batch of undocumented citizens, much to the consternation of open borders demagogues like Ruben Navarette, who have been reassuring a skeptical public for the past month that fears of disease were merely the hyperbolic bogeymen of xenophobic, right wing racists. After all, who would have suspected that severely dehydrated, malnourished children traveling in large groups from third world countries which host a bevy of tropical illnesses, and which have poor public health systems, could be a vector for disease?! You would need to be a virtual Nostradamus to have predicted that this sort of untrammeled mass immigration from developing nations would have negative repercussions for the American public.

Rest assured though, there’s absolutely no chance that these isolated incidents will turn into a deadly pandemic. After all, when was the last time that a grand social experiment had catastrophically negative consequences?

The incalculable damage that mass immigration from the third world has inflicted upon the United Kingdom is a subject that we’ve explored at length on American Rattlesnake. Although the ritualistic murder and dismemberment of Drummer Lee Rigby is the most notorious recent illustration of how this phenomenon has adversely impacted native Britons, there are many, many more such tragic examples that bear scrutiny. 

The most tragic loss experienced by those living there, of course, is the forfeiture of the right to discuss this issue in an honest and frank manner. One need only point to those critics of Islam and Islamic immigration who have been mercilessly persecuted by the state to understand the baleful effects of unrestricted immigration from the developing world. Thankfully, there are some in Britain willing to resist the encroaching tyranny that the multiculturalists have attempted to exercise over a once great nation.  

One of those individuals is Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, a patriotic project that has been subjected to malicious attacks from every sector of the British establishment, from the institutional left within the commentariat, to the bastardized Conservative Party led by David Cameron, to the activist left which has allowed the kultursmog to overwhelm the indelible truths that once allowed Great Britain to prosper. Of course, dissenting from the prevalent groupthink on these matters has exposed Mr. Farage and his colleagues in UKIP to an unremitting barrage of hostility and slanderous accusations. This ranges from the attempt by Sky News-an entity controlled by open borders enthusiast Rupert Murdoch-to yoke him to the much-vilified English MP Enoch Powell, to the repeated efforts by the BBC to portray UKIP as a wholly alien entity, as opposed to lovely home-grown blokes like Anjem Choudary I suppose. 

The attacks by the Beeb should not surprise anyone who is remotely familiar with the approach it normally takes to the subject of immigration. Namely, the less debate-hopefully none at all-the better. Even Nick Robinson, the BBC’s political editor, has now conceded that the network deliberately censored any views which contradicted the ubiquitous enthusiasm for and endorsement of the open door policy initiated by New Labor during the last decade of the 20th century. So don’t expect its distortions of Mr. Farage’s record and stances to abate, or its attempts to defame people who ask legitimate questions about the radical transformation of Great Britain to cease. 

The truth is not embraced any more enthusiastically today than it was in the days of Socrates.

Diversity is our strength, even when it’s our greatest weakness. The experience of Australia isn’t unique, something the ostracized  Frenchman, Swede, and Norwegian can attest to, when they’re given the opportunity. Contrary to popular, i.e. elite, consensus, mass immigration has not been an economic boon to ordinary Australians, despite an emphasis upon skilled immigrants that doesn’t currently exist in American immigration policy, and would not be the norm even with the cosmetic reforms of the Gang of Eight bill.

Prime Minister Gillard was right to oppose the Big Australia policy, and her dramatic policy reversal will only spell more misery for the people who voted her party into power, as well as everyone else who doesn’t get to externalize the costs of open borders or depress the wages they would otherwise have to pay their employees. Multiculturalism might be a strength for those who get to use it as a cudgel against competitors and political opponents, but for the rest of us it amounts to a raw deal.

Once again, the words of Enoch Powell appear prescient, although perhaps in not quite the way the late British parliamentarian and classicist intended. In the same week that Swedes have been besieged by aggrieved jihadists imported by their own government, Londoners experienced yet another subsidiary benefit of multiculturalism. This time, in the form of a Nigerian convert to Islam ritualistically slaughtering a member of the British Army.

Drummer Lee Rigby, of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was methodically  dismembered by an adherent to the Religion of Peace as he walked to his barracks yesterday. The loving father, who had served in Afghanistan, was the latest victim of an alien ideology which has already killed or attempted to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of Britons on their own soil. The perpetrators of this particular atrocity-which echoed an earlier attempt to murder and behead a British soldier in the streets of London-were emulating their countrymen in Nigeria, where Boko Haram, which in Hausa translates to “Western education is a sin,”has turned the northern portion of the country into a charnel house, slaughtering Christians,  security forces, women, and anyone else who does not submit to the imperatives of sharia. The Nigerian government has responded ambiguously, besieging three northern states even as it releases detained members of the ultra-violent, Islamic terror network.

How the UK will respond to this atrocity remains to be seen, although the signals emanating from the ruling class-which is in large measure culpable for this sort of barbarity-are not encouraging. The widely ridiculed British security apparatus responded with undue alacrity. The ahistorical, insipid pabulum put forward by the current empty suit occupying 10 Downing Street was to be expected. Mr. Cameron was simply following the example of our President, who won’t let  the premeditated vivisection of a British citizen sully the good name of Islam. Better not to mention it at all. Of course, most of the large media organs-with a few notable exceptions-sedulously elided the unpleasant fact that these Muslim youths grounded their butchery in Koranic injunctions. The current mayor of London, who once distinguished himself from his Islamophile predecessor, “Red” Ken Livingstone, issued a similar appeal to his constituents not to form a hasty, negative opinion of the perpetrator’s religion simply because of the actions of a few misguided Muslim jihadists who had just assassinated an infidel in the name of Islam.

After all, this is just an isolated incident, most likely the work of a lone wolf-or wolves-which won’t be repeated in the future. It’s not like London is the European hub for pan-Islamic, jihadist terror,  to the point of earning its own delightful sobriquet reflecting the dramatically altered demographics of this international capital of commerce. Despite the feigned expressions of shock and disbelief by the usual suspects, the biography of the soldier of allah seen in video footage is anything but surprising. A follower of the protean jihadist movement known as Al-Muhajiroun, which serves as a finishing school of sorts for would-be Islamic terrorists, he spent recent months exhorting his fellow Muslims to join the Syrian jihad, which I’m sure would have met with the approval of Secretary of State Kerry and much of Congress.

Although we don’t know what precipitated his conversion to Islam, the opportunities presented to him in this new England are ubiquitous. In addition to numerous mosques-both of the mega and storefront variety-Islamic bookshops whose offerings range from Mein Kampf to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; there is the Islamic community itself, where anti-Semitism and hatred of the West proliferates, at least according to British Muslims. There are even committed jihadists willing to instruct young pupils in the tenets of Islam. That is why the words of Cameron, Johnson, and the worse than useless talking heads in the media ring so hollow today.

The message sent by this jihadist’s ostensible mentor, Anjem Choudary, reveals more than any of the lies or willful delusions being promoted by the usual suspects. His testimony to the character of the bestial creature who disemboweled Lee Rigby is illuminating in its own warped way. Islam is a peaceful religion, and Muslims are without sin, because submission is peace and killing infidels is not sinful. According to this belief system, what took place yesterday is commendable and should be emulated, just as the deeds of Mohammed-the model for all proper conduct and behavior-should serve as a model for true Muslims.

In some respects, the philosophy of apocalyptic, jihadist Islam is in perfect harmony with that espoused by the unreconstructed, revolutionary left, which has aided its rise throughout the West. Both are governed by situational ethics, where the ends-if achieved-are justified by the means. Specific actions are judged to be right only insofar as they facilitate a certain outcome. The growth of Islam and sharia in the case of the former, the ideal collectivist state for the latter. Both buttress each other, but the foundation stone is the left, which has constructed the meta-narrative that there are no reasons to oppose mass immigration from the third world-or the customs and beliefs these newcomers hew to-which aren’t invidious and racist in origin, and that the thoughts and feelings of the majority of Europeans and Americans constitute a form of mass psychosis.

That is why western European cities are being sacked for the first time since the end of World War II, and why the president will not even utter the name of the religion which is responsible for the atrocity committed yesterday in Woolwich. If diversity is our strength, then any action-or even statement-which might diminish public support for this grand experiment of our political leadership is forbidden; or “haram,” if you will. The loving, caring family of Lee Rigby is experiencing a torment that defies description, yet the government of Great Britain refuses to look reality in the eye and identify the killer by its rightful name. In this respect, there is some truth to the words of the orc who murdered and desecrated the body of that courageous serviceman. David Cameron and Boris Johnson-Labour, the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats-do not care about English people.

That much is obvious.

Congratulations to UKIP and its visionary leadership, including leader Nigel Farage! Granted, it’s simply by-elections-the real test lies ahead-but anytime you can anger and frighten the multi-culti, metropolitan,middle class, left wing pricks at the Beeb and their Guardianista comrades to this extent, you know you’ve hit pay dirt. The debate over coercive multiculturalism and ahistoric, politically engineered mass immigration to Great Britain, as well as the legal/moral double standards these policies engender, has finally begun in earnest, despite the best efforts of that nation’s gatekeepers to ruthlessly suppress it.

Just as the UK Independence Party exposed the folly of the European integration project, so it will lead the charge to restore common sense to that country’s immigration policies. Three cheers from across the Atlantic!

One image taken from the pro-Hamas rally held by Al-Awda NY, among other anti-Israel organizations, in Times Square this weekend. I wish I could say that it was anomalous in some way, but the inexorable truth is that the physically and intellectually etiolated creature you see above was probably as representative of the spirit of this demonstration as any of the participants. That a decrepit red diaper baby extolled the Marxist, Latin American despot Hugo Chavez  is not surprising, although neither should be his admiration for Chavez’s staunch ally Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A man who shares with his equally anti-Semitic friend a history of manipulating election results.

The domestic alliance between socialist and communist true believers and obscurantist, apocalyptic Islam is mirrored to a large degree in the Gaza Strip itself, where rejectionist strands of the PLO, such as the Marxist-Leninist PFLP, join forces with the Al-Qassam Brigades in shelling Israeli civilians. I’m not sure what end game the Trotskyites in the Spartacist League have in mind, but I have the nagging suspicion it doesn’t quite sync with the ultimate goals of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or the Al Qaeda-inspired salafists currently vying for control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

While useful idiots are pivotal to the success of any totalitarian revolution, once the despised tyrant is dethroned, they are more often than not treated to a dose of revolutionary justice. Perhaps some of these reactionary leftists should have a conversation with MEK exiles in order to learn about the pitfalls of yoking your cause to an ideology which relentlessly persecutes atheists, at its best.

Granted, it’s possible that militant Stalinists and those who want to eradicate any remnant of Judaism from the Jewish State might be able to co-exist, but it seems like those who would want to kill for the Al Aqsa Mosque might be of a different hue than those who would kill for dialectical materialism.

Although I doubt such discussions would prove fruitful, as the inclination for affinity groups and Marxist ideologues to view Arab-Muslims, particularly those living on the outskirts of Israel, as perpetually downtrodden and oppressed-the eternal underdog-is impenetrable to reason and empirical evidence. A sign of this enduring myth is the Puerto Rican flag seen above, probably held aloft by an independentista, who’ll no doubt have more time to demonize Israel in a few years, once that island’s ambiguous political status is permanently resolved.

One of the incongruities of this particular anti-Israel demonstration-although it must be said, leftists and their allies have never been known for their philosophical integrity or ideological coherency-was the strange, ritualistic incantations against “hate” followed immediately thereafter by the most noxious expressions of hatred and contempt.  For example, the repeated chant “Stop the violence, stop the hate,” which was quickly followed on the down beat by “Israel is a terrorist state!”

Pardon my impertinence, but isn’t categorizing a nation of nearly eight million distinct individuals as racist a bit hateful, not to mention insinuating that this country is perpetrating genocide? The latter charge is especially curious, considering the fact that casualties from Israeli weaponry-including the deaths of confirmed terrorists-during this conflict number fewer than the toll of Palestinians Hamas murdered during the 2007 putsch which resulted in its seizure of power from Fatah.

What’s more, the Palestinians killed during this conflict number less than a tenth of those “collaborators” murdered without trial during the first intifada.

Unfortunately, as you can see, this unique interpretation of justice is still avidly practiced by those in charge of the Gaza Strip.

If the concern trolls who detest Israel so much really want to see a state that perpetrates genocide, perhaps they should cast their eyes north.

It’s reassuring to imagine that a certain cognitive dissonance is at play when the most demagogic critics of Israel regurgitate their talking points and deploy some of their more eye-catching imagery-such as that seen on the placard above. Unfortunately, I don’t think they recognize the inherent disconnect between accusing Israel of slaughtering children while simultaneously standing behind a group which indoctrinates Palestinian children from the time they can walk into a culture of jihadist, exterminatory violence. To say nothing of the cynical exploitation of Palestinian women and children as human shields for terrorist leaders.

The sincerity of their denunciations of Israeli “hate” were called into question again when the mixed Palestinian fanatic/desiccated Marxist crowd began to shout “Yassin, Yassin, do not cry; Palestine will never die!” While it’s possible that they were referring to a controversial military engagement that occurred during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the fact that this was a pro-Hamas rally leads one to the ineluctable conclusion that they were celebrating the life of a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians, including those who have died as a result of the current bloodshed.

As odd as it might seem, the most ideologically coherent contingent, aside from the keffiyeh and hijab-clad Palestinians echoing the historical demand that Israelis be pushed into the sea, was the cultish faction of Neturei Karta seen in the photograph above. Whether meeting with Holocaust enthusiast Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or breaking bread with Yasser Arafat, a protege of Adolf Hitler’s Middle Eastern Reichsführer, NK has made it abundantly clear that it despises the state of Israel as it currently exists.

Of course, this is a free country. You’re entitled to express your opinion, however loathsome, so long as it doesn’t trespass against the life and safety of another individual or group of citizens. That said, I have to say the pretense that most of the people gathered in Times Square care about the lives of ordinary Muslim women and children living in the Gaza Strip is hard to digest.

It’s especially difficult to conceive of a scenario where they would bemoan the fate of these particular Muslims if their suffering bore no relation to Israel. You need look no further than a perpetrator of actual genocide, the Baathist Assad dynasty, in order to apprehend this concept. More than three times as many Palestinians have been killed in Syria during its civil war than have perished in the current conflict, yet you see no comparable sense of outrage among these indignant, alleged supporters of the Palestinian cause.

Apparently, their lives are not worth as much as the ones inserted into a meta-narrative designed by Hamas to manipulate international news media. In our next post, we’ll look at the other side of the coin.

One of the fascinating aspects of living in this city is that, for good or ill, you’re exposed to a whole raft of ideologies and political philosophies of which, but for location, you might have remained blissfully ignorant in perpetuity. Granted, some of us choose to remain mired in a state of ignorance notwithstanding the fact that we dwell in the cultural capital of the planet. Even so, those of us with a smidgen of intellectual curiosity find ourselves compelled to investigate  these esoteric political beliefs, if for no other reason than merely to satisfy the more quizzical side of our nature.

That’s what brought me down to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, the site of multiple demonstrations against the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this past week. The largest faction of protesters came at the urging of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, otherwise known as the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran, otherwise known as the MKO, not to be confused with the National Council of Resistance in Iran, which serves as the MEK’s parliament-in-exile. Confused yet? Bear with me.

The banner you see above might look vaguely familiar, and that’s probably because you’ve seen it before-in New York City, no less! That’s right, it was part of the original Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zuccotti Park, which was eventually dispersed by the NYPD.

Despite its many permutations throughout the decades, one of the constants of the MEK has been its association, however attenuated, with the  left. So its decision to align itself with the staggeringly incoherent, yet incontestably leftist, OWS movement should not have come as a surprise. And just as you’ll find PMOI supporters at large gatherings of leftists, you’re more than likely to find a diverse array of leftists-with an interest in anti-IRI activism-at MEK rallies.

At the last MEK demonstration against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I observed an informational booth manned by a member of the Worker-communist Party of Iran-in exile, of course- who stood behind a crimson red banner that resembled this flag. The irony of denouncing the world’s leading state sponsor of terror while venerating-seemingly-Russia’s first mass terrorist apparently being lost on him.

Large sections of this rally weren’t any more intellectually coherent, unfortunately. Case in point, a group of Western feminists protesting the Iranian state’s deplorable treatment of women, including the not infrequent executions of those who run afoul of its clerical leadership’s capricious enforcement of Islamic law.

Although the Iranian regime’s periodic bloodletting of its citizenry is deserving of universal condemnation, I can’t help but think that doing so while wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the image of one of the Western Hemisphere’s most notorious executioners-and a totalitarian, to boot-is a decidedly mixed message.

Even so, it can’t be disputed that the Iranian system of justice-including its hellish penal institutions-is barbaric even by the most narrow definition of human rights. As the poster above indicates, Iran is one of the few countries that still routinely sentences juveniles to death, more often than not carrying out those verdicts. This tragedy is made all the more horrific by the complicity of Western suppliers of construction equipment; equipment that is regularly utilized in one of the Iranian regime’s preferred methods of execution.

Even though this facet of capital punishment in Iran is rapidly changing due to grassroots political pressure, there are other more traditional methods of murdering unsatisfied citizens, as the picture above-and the story of Soraya M.-demonstrate.

Death and imminent danger were recurring themes throughout the rally, along with the threat posed by a potentially nuclear-armed IRI. Those executed by the Iranian state, before, during, and after the 2009 Green Revolution were highlighted at different points throughout the day.

Another issue promoted-in keeping with the depressingly repetitive news coming across the news wires-is the anti-Assad revolution within Syria. In addition to spotting some Syrians sporting hats with the logo of the Free Syrian Army-a group engaged in questionable  actions itself-there were dozens of men and women bearing the pre-Baathist flag of the Syrian Republic, which has become synonymous with the civil war which has ravaged Syria for the past year and a half.

The inextricable bond between that regime and its benefactors in the Iranian government was referenced throughout the rally. That the Syrian government would probably be unable to repulse its domestic opponents without the military assistance it receives from Iran is an inexorable truth.

So is, it would seem, the precarious nature of Bashar al-Assad’s decade-long reign, although making geopolitical predictions-as history tells us-is always a dicey proposition.

One of the intriguing elements of the anti-Assad faction within this demonstration was the attempt to cast a non-sectarian facade over their efforts. Even though the ecumenical sentiments of these opponents of Baathism were no doubt sincere, I’m not certain that Syrian Christians feel the same way, especially after witnessing the fate of their Assyrian and Catholic brethren in neighboring Iraq.

Though the Syrian regime’s persecution of religious and ethnic minorities is well documented, the prospect that Syria’s most imperiled minority will benefit from yet another Islamic awakening during this Arab Spring is doubtful. One need only look to the precedent established by the Islamic Revolution in Iran in order to see that non-Islamic faiths don’t always thrive in the aftermath of Middle Eastern regime change.

That said, those looking to depose the mullahs in Iran have a compelling argument to make. One that I hope to examine in my third and final post on this subject, in which I’ll continue to explore the history-and perhaps the future-of one of the most vocal and controversial Iranian opposition groups, the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq.